Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Delusions of the Opposition

Good news for Republicans. The learning curve is too steep for Democrats.

Filibuster Showdown Looms In Senate

If the above article holds true, Democrats will set themselves up for a steep fall, losing the nomination battle, the filibuster battle, being the first faction of the ‘Gang of 14’ to break the agreement, and damaging their less than good chances of pulling off any sort of election coup.

In an interview, (Howard) Dean said Democratic unity is essential in the upcoming battle and that the party "absolutely" should be prepared to filibuster Bush's next high court nominee, if he taps someone they find unacceptably ideological.

I have been anxiously waiting for Dean to get revved up again. In one statement, he has blown every argument that the Democrats have made in favor of their wave of filibusters out the window. The whole debate has been an extension of politics, not some valiant attempt to vet unqualified appointments. ‘Unqualified’ now means, ‘doesn’t agree with us’.

He cited appellate court judges Priscilla R. Owen and Janice Rogers Brown as two who would be likely to trigger such opposition.

I can’t wait for this fight. This will be as good as the Super Bowl. (not really, but you get my drift)

"If we lose, better to go down fighting and standing for what we believe in, because we will not win an election if the public doesn't think we'll stand up for what we believe in."

And thus hits the crux of the matter. Dean and other Dems are delusional in their belief that they know the pulse of the country. Filibustering will certainly hurt any chance they may have in the 2006 elections. And all of this before any names have been submitted.

The Gang of 14 agreement barred filibusters against judicial nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances."

Owen and Brown were cleared for confirmation to the appellate courts as part of that agreement, and Republicans said then that Democratic acquiescence in their confirmation meant the opposition party could not use ideology to bar future Bush nominees.

Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), a member of the Gang of 14 who plans to vote for Roberts, said a filibuster will be warranted if "the president appoints someone who brings a right-wing ideology and is going to use the court to advance their views."

Besides being utterly hypocritical, that statement clearly shows Salazar plans to break the agreement. In the words of one famous Dem: “Bring It On!”

If Democrats threaten a filibuster, Republicans are likely to respond by bringing back the nuclear option.

You think? Fire away!

Democrats think Bush is too weak politically to take on a difficult fight over the court. Some also argue that Republicans would lose politically if they change the rules to force through a nominee.

More delusions from the left. They continue to believe that public criticism of Bush over Iraq or Katrina somehow translates into their own popularity. And, as I state in just about every post these days, Bush isn’t running again. But Republicans running in 2006, no doubt, will breathe a sigh of relief as it becomes clear that the loyal opposition continues their obstinate ranting and failed strategies.